Looking at 10 year old half-ton trucks

[Oldswagon]

With my old 'burb closing in on 400,000 kms, I am going to start to look at replacing it with a half-ton truck in the next year. So that means I am starting to look at wnat ads etc, for a trucks that are well maintained and priced right. I am looking at either Ford, GM or Toyota trucks in the 8-10 year range. I have no interest in any Dodge, or mid-size/compact trucks period.

I am leaning toward either a ext cab with a 6.5' box or a reg cab with an 8' box; 4x4 is a must. Fuel economy, reliability and ease of service are the most important factors. My ‘burb has never seen a shop for a repair, beyond alignments and exhaust, I plan on doing the same with the new truck. Power and performance are secondary as I don't plan on doing heavy towing (but I will tow with it), nor do I have any intentions to drive a truck as if it were a car. The truck will be used as a daily driver/weekend hauler (and please don’t try to convince me to by car along with a trailer).

Please chime in with any real world experiences with GM, Ford or Toyota trucks of this vintage. I am looking for common problem areas any of these trucks have, and things to watch for or avoid. Any owner’s experiences would be appreciated as well.

Please avoid turning this into a Ford vs Chev or brand X flame war.

 

[Chris Meutsch]

Tundra looks pretty reliable. Don't know about the bed length though.

 

[JHZR2]

FIL had a T100 before his F150. This is true severe service (moving large amounts of weight such as oil drum pallets) up and down the severe terrain in the VI. The ford is superior hands down for capability, strength, rust resistance, etc.

The current tundra is apparently quite good, but the earlier ones are fairly weak compared to domestic rivals, and the recent tundra is out of your range.

A 98-02ish K1500 or F150 Id think wouldbe a great bet. Ditto for the 150. While I always loved the look fo the dodge trucks, it seems that they have a lot of rust issues.

I think it would be pretty neat if you could find a good condition F250 with the 4.9 I6 and MT.

 

[UNC017]

Well, my first pick would be a Dodge from 2003 onward- the first of the 3rd-gens- About the only thing you have to watch on them is HVAC issues through ~2005.

But since you veto Dodge, and looking at what Ford and GM were building in that time frame, I would give the GM the edge up through 2003, then Ford after that. Toyota is barely in the running now, and the attempt at a fullsize truck that they were building 10 years ago was just sad.

 

[Trav]

I can only give you my own ownership experience.
I have 99 Expedition and a 2000 F150 both were owned since new by my brother,garage kept and dealer maintained, i acquired both of them in 2005 with approx 45-55 respectively, both now have less than 100K

I also have a 2002 GMC Denali XL AWD with 116K owned since 2006 for my shop, i got it with 40k.

Living in the snow belt the Fords have been nothing but a nightmare, badly rotted frames, rear end covers, exhaust manifolds, starters, evap and brake lines etc.
The brakes are always seizing slightly if they don't get driven for a few weeks,the shocks rotted badly on the expedition as well as the rocker panels.
The ebrake shoes de laminated and needed to be replaced in the middle of winter on the side of the road as well as the electronic transfer case shift motor.
The expedition broke a torsion bar on the pass side.

The F150 has had 3 bad COP and has tossed 2 plugs out since new, the expedition just two bad COP units.
Both engines rattle like marbles in a tin can when cold since they both have bad tensioners. The F150 had awful piston slap to boot. Both are 5.4

The front end, lower ball joints especially had to be done multiple times on both.
I am getting rid of the Expedition soon and the F150 is gone since may.

The GMC has had tune ups, oil changes, coolant service, trans and PS fluid changes and an alternator. The rear ebrake backing plates rotted right off the truck but no other rust noted.
Shocks are OEM and in good shape, the frame is rust free as is the rest of the truck. The 6.0 is fantastic, no noise or problems, never had a CEL on this truck. The front end is 100% OEM. I did a brake job (pads and rotors at 60K).

Not a Ford bash just what's been going on with these since i got them 6 years ago.
The Expedition was the better of the two.
Most of the issues with these Fords was rust related, in another climate they would probably be good trucks although the engine wasn't very impressive they ran well enough.

The Fords averaged 14 MPG and the GMC with a bigger more powerful engine 16 MPG
I can honestly say if i had to lay the money out again it would be for another GM.

 

[MNgopher]

I owned two F150's of that generation (1997-2004 Heritage). Both were some of the best vehicles I've ever owned, period. Both were extended cab flareside units, with the 4.6l V8 and an auto transmission. The 97 was a 2wd version with 3.08 gearing, and the '99 was a 4x4 with 3.55's. I sold the '97 with 163,000 miles on it and it ran like a top. I sold the '99 this spring with 194,000 on it, and I'd take it on a cross county drive in a heartbeat even with the mileage.

Watch for rust on the bottoms of the doors and tailgate. My '99 was terrible at the bottom of the doors. I did not have any issues with the frame or torsion bars or anything else after 11 Minnesota winters. For engines, forget the V6, and look at the V8's only. The 4.6 is not a real powerhouse, but it is dead reliable. I never had an issue with them, and the truck always got the job done, sometimes slowly

. The 5.4's are known to shoot their spark plugs occasionally, (and some 4.6's too, but the 5.4 is the one you hear about). Spark plug changes are not the most fun, but they are an every 60k item (100k manufacturer recommended).

I did ball joints on both trucks once (around 110,000 miles) and also the tie rod ends at about the same timeframe. The e brake delmainated at about 150,000 miles on the '99 - was an easy fix once I set the parts monkeys straight on the needed parts... The '97 had rear drums and rear wheel anti lock brakes that were a bit touchy.

I averaged 17 mpg in the '97 and 15 mpg in the '99 (take note of the gearing and drivetrain)

Other than that, I loved those trucks (and I now own another F150, so they must have done something right...)

No experience with the Chevy or Toyota of the era.

 

[fdcg27]

If you're looking at decade old trucks in snow country, your first concern should be rust.
I'd probably snap up a rust free truck from either GM or Ford, although I am partial to Fords, and would love a late 4.9 six stick.
Evrything else can be fixed, and parts on vehicles of that age should not be too expensive, especially since GM and Ford both made these things in huge volumes (still do), so a good aftermarket infrastructure exists, as well as a good supply of junkyard parts vehicles.
Rust is the one thing that can't be fixed within any economic reason.

 

[Spazdog]

Nissan is a little out of the year range, but I did enjoy driving the Titan. Especially at WOT. That VK56 sounds sooo good and feels a [heckuva] lot stronger than 305 hp. Neighbor has one with well over 100,000 miles. It issues a little puff of smoke on cold starts but otherwise seems fine pulling a trailer doing everything he wants it too. His sons have his old 4.9 L6 Fords (87 and 95). Those have been apart in his driveway more than the Titan

My dad had a 7/8ths size Tundra after his GMC. He greatly preferred the Tundra and drove it like he drove his patrol car. Hopping medians, driving on the wrong side of the road to get around traffic scaring the [heck] out of me. I guess it's good to be a cop when all the cops in town know you. It was flawless but there is no rust here.

I really like my stepfather's 2004 Heritage F-150 STX....more than I ever thought I would. I don't really care for the Essex V6 in it's smaller incarnations but I gotta' admit, the 4.2 has been a pretty good little motor. The heavier duty version of the Mazda M5OD shifts nice even if the shifter throws are a little long. Of course, I have yet to see a 4.2 4X4. It's a decent truck.

But then there are the GMs.
If you've put 400,000kms on a Suburban, you are probably intimately acquainted with all the little stuff that breaks on the inside of a GM. Not to worry. They continue to run and run and run. It's been said that you can drive a GM longer with something broken than most cars will run period....which is a good thing. They don't seem to be bothered by that pesky Check Engine Light. The driver has checked the engine and it is still there. And they keep on driving. Of all my client's cars, I think I have more C/K1500s and 4.0 Jeeps with over 300,000 miles than all the other 300,000+ mile cars combined

I do like the Dodges the best. They appeal most to my eye and I like driving them the best. My friend had a 2000 318 powered Ram 1500. It was just so much cooler to drive. I could feel the engine thrumming through the gas pedal. Not in an intrusive way. In a "we bad....we're nationwide..." sort of reassuring American V8 way.

 

[OVERKILL]

We've had three Expeditions of that era: 98, 2000 and a 2002. Since you are in the rust belt like me, make sure you find a truck (I don't care what brand) that has been sprayed by Krown or Rust Check. My Expedition is the same body style as Trav's except that it hasn't had many of the same issues, nor the issue with rust. It came from Toronto and the frame was still black on it when we bought it. We've kept it that way with annual Krown applications. My parent's 2000 wasn't Krown'd until about two years ago now. And it shows. It lives on the east coast, so has year-round salt exposure. Running board mounts have rusted out pretty badly and we recently had the rear LCA's replaced due to rust on them and me questioning how solid they were. Shocks (air ride) on it are original, and it has had a tie-rod end, and lower ball joints done several years ago (Moog). Other than that, it pulls trailers regularly, knocks back ~18Mpg highway, and has never left anybody stranded. It had had one bad COP in its ownership history, my parents have owned it since new. It has also had the brakes done twice. No issue with them sticking or acting up.

Ours has had both upper control arms replaced (ball joints) with Moog units. The lower ball joints were new when we bought it. Drivers-side tie-rod end was also replaced shortly after we bought it (Moog). I've done the brakes on it once (re-used the rotors) with Motorcraft pads. They have held up well. Rotors are whatever came on it. The E-brake was done when we bought it as well. This is a problem point if it is not used.

I did shocks on ours last year. Only takes a couple hours in the driveway. No jack required. They were replaced because I had towed some ill-weighted trailers with it a few times (and was carrying an engine in the back) and the one rear shock didn't appear to be functioning correctly after that. It has launched a plug twice (same plug, 2nd time it came out it needed the insert installed, not too expensive) and two COP's. They are dirt-cheap from Ford (~$40.00) and only take a couple minutes to replace. Not a big deal.

Neither of ours make any noise (tensioner, slap or otherwise). IIRC, 2000 was the year that they got the PI heads, which bumped the power output to 260HP/350lb-ft of Torque. So if shopping for an F-150, I'd shoot for a 2000 or newer because of that.

We have roughly 230,000Km on each of them (140,000 miles). We've owned the one for 11 years now, the other for 3. I've put 80,000Km on ours since we bought it.

 

[ls1mike]

If you had good luck with the burb, stay with what you know.
The 99 and up GM trucks have an LSX easy to fix, reliable and plenty out there. I would say go with the GM and nex the Ford.
That is just based off what I see at the campsites and talking to people who own them and tow with them often.

 

[Oldswagon]

Thanks for all the great input so far, please keep it coming. The info on what guys have had to replace is great stuff. Any known trouble spots would be great too.

Off the top of my head, I do know GM's have problems with their steering shafts, fuel pumps and the 4l60/65-E can fail (although I am still on an original in my '93 Burb). I've heard a lot of rust issues with the 97-04 Fords as well as tie rods, and transmission failures. A few owners of the 04+ Fords I know seem to have early ball joint failures.

Don't know much about the Tundra's. I know the 4.7L is a good engine, but I don't think it's very economical. My 2WD Suburban now gets between 18-19 MPG hwy, and I don't really want to get worse (I typically drive about 70MPH).

As for rust, I am very picky when it comes to checking for rust. I will probably only buy a truck that has been oil sprayed. My 'burb is almost 19 years old and still has a decent body on it.

As for brand, I don't really care that much. My burb is so old, it doesn't share much in common with the newer GM trucks. It will be more about finding that right truck, you know the one that has been well cared for, oil sprayed, properly maintained. Lots of trucks around hear a beat to death, so it will take some time, and it may cost me more money. But that's how I ended up the the 'burb I have now, and it's been the best vehicle I have owned hands down.

 

[hattaresguy]

I'd stick with a Ford, or Chevy/GMC. Toyota's of that vintage tend to be hard to find, very expensive, and at least in my area rust, quickly.

Having said that just find one in good shape, trucks tend to be beat and used up. I know when mine is 10 years old since I work it, its going to be pretty used up.

They all have problems, but IMHO at least from 04 up Ford has a better 1/2 ton frame than GM, but in my experience the GM's tend to be slightly more reliable. Its really a wash though. Ford's from around 2000 vintage you may want to watch though, didn't they have a really bad frame? I remember them failing some accident tests?

What's your budget? The Nissan Titan wasn't mentioned but I think they seem to be pretty decent and underrated trucks, IMHO better than Toyota.

 

[CBR.worm]

If possible, buy one from a non-salt state. Down here we never see rust on vehicles. Up in your neck of the woods I see nearly new trucks with rust everywhere.

I have bought vehicles from almost 1,000 miles away. It's not always easy but it could get you a better truck.

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Oldswagon

Don't know much about the Tundra's. I know the 4.7L is a good engine, but I don't think it's very economical. My 2WD Suburban now gets between 18-19 MPG hwy, and I don't really want to get worse

It is a good engine and it's not particularly economical.
My dad's sole complaint was that his smaller Tundra with a smaller engine got roughly the same mileage as his '97 GMC

Originally Posted By: hattaresguy

What's your budget? The Nissan Titan wasn't mentioned but I think they seem to be pretty decent and underrated trucks, IMHO better than Toyota.

I mentioned the Titan but they are not 10 years old and they might have some Nissan V8 oil consumption problems.

 

[OVERKILL]

Originally Posted By: Oldswagon
Thanks for all the great input so far, please keep it coming. The info on what guys have had to replace is great stuff. Any known trouble spots would be great too.

Off the top of my head, I do know GM's have problems with their steering shafts, fuel pumps and the 4l60/65-E can fail (although I am still on an original in my '93 Burb). I've heard a lot of rust issues with the 97-04 Fords as well as tie rods, and transmission failures. A few owners of the 04+ Fords I know seem to have early ball joint failures.

Don't know much about the Tundra's. I know the 4.7L is a good engine, but I don't think it's very economical. My 2WD Suburban now gets between 18-19 MPG hwy, and I don't really want to get worse (I typically drive about 70MPH).

As for rust, I am very picky when it comes to checking for rust. I will probably only buy a truck that has been oil sprayed. My 'burb is almost 19 years old and still has a decent body on it.

As for brand, I don't really care that much. My burb is so old, it doesn't share much in common with the newer GM trucks. It will be more about finding that right truck, you know the one that has been well cared for, oil sprayed, properly maintained. Lots of trucks around hear a beat to death, so it will take some time, and it may cost me more money. But that's how I ended up the the 'burb I have now, and it's been the best vehicle I have owned hands down.



For that vintage, a Ford with a 4R100 in it (likely behind the 5.4L) is a very solid transmission choice. The 4R70W is also a good transmission (and I think more durable than its lightweight GM counterpart) but "shudder" issues and the change to Mercon V make that a somewhat convoluted area of discussion.

I would say there are rust issues with any pick-up of this era. My uncle's Silverado is a rust machine. Unlike my parent's Expie, which appeared to get it primarily on the frame and undercarriage, this truck got it on the body. Goes with the territory and vehicles from anybody in this environment really. I don't think any of them rust "worse" than the other (Ford and GM) just that they rust in different spots if not treated to a spray like Krown or Rust Check.

The '04+ F-150 has a phenomenal frame under it and got exceptional (perfect) crash test scores because of the total redesign the truck had. Another consideration if it is in the budget.

 

[Trav]

Both of mine has/had the 4R100, no issues whatsoever, these are some tough units no doubt.
I sanded the frame down to bare metal and fixed/replaced any rusted parts when i got it and it (the Expedition) has been okay since then, i also rustproofed it with an oil/wax based product.

I am 100% sure if this was done by my brother when it was new there would be no (or a whole lot less) rust issues.
When i did the exhaust manifolds on the 99 i noticed the heads had PI on them, it was built in july 99.
I forgot the darn running boards mine almost rotted right off the truck, they cost me over $400 each to change them, the brackets being the most expensive parts.

Originally Posted By: oldswagon
My 2WD Suburban now gets between 18-19 MPG hwy


The Yukon XL gets an average of 16 mpg 19-20 is well within reach highway.

 

[caravanmike]

here are the weaknesses of the brands i know of

Toyota tundra -weaker frame than the other two (also prone to more frame rust [recall])
- to access the starter (4.7L) you have to remove intake manifold. since you do your own work this is not diy friendly. and as long as you keep a vehicle you will be replacing the starter.
- the 4.7L and 3.4L have a timing belt with 90k intervals. alot of people trade the vehicle so they don't have to pay the $900 to get this work done

Chevrolet silverado - the 4l60e is the only weak link i know of but since you already got one to last 250,000 miles i think you know how to get the high miles out of them.

Ford f-150 - the only weakness i know of is the whole spark plug issue which is easily fixed with inserts, also i have some friends that have had to replace coils. one after another (maybe it was cheap aftermarket parts?) but cheap and easy to do!

 

[MNgopher]

I also had to replace the Nerf / Step Bars on my '99 F150 after about 7 years. I will note that they were not factory, and they were not stainless - these were the black powercoated type. I replaced them with a cheap set (about $300) and they were about shot after 4 years...

I guess the blame there is on the Cheap owner for not going stainless in the first place...

 

[UNC017]

Originally Posted By: Oldswagon

As for brand, I don't really care that much.


Then why rule out Dodge? As far as pickups go, Ford, GM, and Dodge are pretty much all interchangeable and equal in most respects. GMs of that era had somewhat weaker transmissions compared to the other two. Fords (through 94) had somewhat weaker cab structure especially in the crew cabs. Dodges through 02 had some front-end issues pretty much cured with the 03 redesign, but the 03 had its HVAC issues. Engines, rear axles, etc. of all 3 are going to outlive your desire to keep the truck, so not an issue. Toyota and Nissan frankly just didn't have the fullsize truck thing together back then, and in my opinion still don't but Toyota at least is a lot closer now.

Bottom line, I'd find the truck in the best condition for dollar in your area, be it Ford, Chevy, GMC, or Dodge... and enjoy.

 

[Ben99GT]

I'd vote for the F150, my '01 has been the best overall vehicle I've owned.

173,000 miles and it's on its 3rd set of tires and its second set of brake pads. Over the truck's life I've replaced:
- 3 ignition coils
- A/C compressor clutch
- upper/lower ball joints (Moog)
- outer tie rod ends (Moog - didn't need them just replaced them while I was there)
- idler arm and pitman arm (Moog - the pitman arm developed a little slack so I replaced both)

The OEM front end components started to go around 150,000 miles.

The truck is a daily driver but gets worked semi-regularly. The chassis feels as solid and rattle free as it did at 30,000 miles and the engine is noise free and as smooth as silk. The interior shows no sign of it's age and the paint is still glossy and in excellent shape.

My only cosmetic complaints are the headlights have aged and front grille insert has faded, but beyond that the truck could pass for 3 years old if the body style didn't change in 2004. The GMs of that era would be my 2nd choice. The Dodges of that era do not age nearly as well as the Fords and GMs, IMHO.